Check an approval request

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so "it changes nothing" largely restates the structured data. The polling guidance adds a useful behavioral cue (safe to call repeatedly while blocked) but nothing about latency, expiry of approvals, or error cases is disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded with the returned status values, followed by the polling directive. No filler and nothing repeated from the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately by enumerating the decision states and the unused flag. Combined with full parameter coverage and rich annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema itself explains that approval_id comes from twin_request_approval. The description adds no syntax, format, or validity constraints beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states precisely what the tool returns: the principal's decision state (approved/declined/undecided) plus whether the approval is still unused. That makes it clearly distinct from siblings like twin_request_approval or twin_authorise, which act on requests rather than reading their status, though no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Poll this while you wait; it changes nothing" gives explicit usage context: this is the tool to call repeatedly while an approval is pending, and it is side-effect free. It stops short of naming an alternative for the case where the approval has already resolved, but the context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.